Wednesday, January 30, 2013

A little-known plant with a truly bizarre name is now making headlines as a cancer killer, with the compound of the plant vanishing tumors in mice with pancreatic cancer. Known as the ‘thunder god vine’ or lei gong teng, the Chinese plant is actually integrated into Chinese medicine and has been used for ages in remedying a number of conditions including rheumatoid arthritis.

According to the new research out of the University of Minnesota’s Masonic Cancer Center, the thunder god plant compound led to no signs of tumors after a 40 day period — even after discontinuing the treatment. Published in the journal Science Translational Medicine and funded by the National Institutes of Health, even the scientists working on the project were stunned by the anti-cancer properties of the compound. Known to contain something known as triptolide, which has been identified as a cancer fighter in previous research, it is thought to be the key component that may be responsible for the anti-tumor capabilities.

Study leader and vice chairman of research at the Cancer Center explained to Bloomberg how he was blown away by the effects of the simple plant:

“This drug is just unbelievably potent in killing tumor cells,” he said.

And just like with numerous other powerful substances like turmeric and ginger, mainstream science is still slowly confirming what many traditional practitioners have known for their entire lives. This is, of course, due to the fact that there is simply no money for major corporations in researching the healing powers of natural herbs and compounds such as the compound found in the thunder god vine. Turmeric and ginger, for example, have been found to be amazing anti-cancer substances that are virtually free compared to expensive and dangerous cancer drugs.

Nevertheless, the Big Pharma sponsored corporate scientists have managed to ignore these spices as much as possible. In fact, they have even been caught time and time again faking thousands of studies to fraudulently demonstrate the supposed value of pharmaceutical drugs pushed by major pharma juggernauts — many of which are later forced to pay millions in fines which only slightly stack up against their billions in profits.

Profits that are threatened by the many real studies that were performed by scientists examining the rejeuvenating power of cheap ingredients like turmeric, which has been found by peer-reviewed research available on PubMed to positively influence over 590 conditions.

While it is great news that this study is bringing the beneficial effects of inexpensive and near-free plant compounds to light, the bad news is that the individuals responsible for the research are actually looking to create a pharmaceutical drug from the essential component triptolide. A drug that will seek FDA approval and ultimately be patented, nutritionally ruined, and sold for exorbitant amounts of cash. Instead, just get your hands on some thunder god vine for yourself.

Montana StandardLOS ANGELES — Eating red meat — any amount and any type — appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 110,000 adults for more than 20 years.

For instance, adding just one 3-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat — picture a piece of steak no bigger than a deck of cards — to one’s daily diet was associated with a 13 percent greater chance of dying during the course of the study.

Even worse, adding an extra daily serving of processed red meat, such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon, was linked to a 20 percent higher risk of death during the study.

“Any red meat you eat contributes to the risk,” said An Pan, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and lead author of the study, published online Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Crunching data from thousands of questionnaires that asked people how frequently they ate a variety of foods, the researchers also discovered that replacing red meat with other foods seemed to reduce mortality risk for study participants.

Eating a serving of nuts instead of beef or pork was associated with a 19 percent lower risk of dying during the study. The team said choosing poultry or whole grains as a substitute was linked with a 14 percent reduction in mortality risk; low-fat dairy or legumes, 10 percent; and fish, 7 percent.

Previous studies had associated red meat consumption with diabetes, heart disease and cancer, all of which can be fatal. Scientists aren’t sure exactly what makes red meat so dangerous, but the suspects include the iron and saturated fat in beef, pork and lamb, the nitrates used to preserve them, and the chemicals created by high-temperature cooking.

The Harvard researchers hypothesized that eating red meat would also be linked to an overall risk of death from any cause, Pan said. And the results suggest they were right: Among the 37,698 men and 83,644 women who were tracked, as meat consumption increased, so did mortality risk.

In separate analyses of processed and unprocessed meats, the group found that both types appear to hasten death. Pan said that at the outset, he and his colleagues had thought it likely that only processed meat posed a health danger.

Carol Koprowski, a professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine who wasn’t involved in the research, cautioned that it can be hard to draw specific conclusions from a study like this because there can be a lot of error in the way diet information is recorded in food frequency questionnaires, which ask subjects to remember past meals in sometimes grueling detail.

But Pan said the bottom line was that there was no amount of red meat that’s good for you.

“If you want to eat red meat, eat the unprocessed products, and reduce it to two or three servings a week,” he said. “That would have a huge impact on public health.”

A majority of people in the study reported that they ate an average of at least one serving of meat per day.

Pan said that he eats one or two servings of red meat per week, and that he doesn’t eat bacon or other processed meats.

Cancer researcher Lawrence H. Kushi of the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland, Calif., said that groups putting together dietary guidelines were likely to pay attention to the findings in the study.

“There’s a pretty strong supposition that eating red meat is important — that it should be part of a healthful diet,” said Kushi, who was not involved in the study. “These data basically demonstrate that the less you eat, the better.”

University of California, San Francisco, researcher and vegetarian diet advocate Dr. Dean Ornish said he gleaned a hopeful message from the study.

“Something as simple as a meatless Monday can help,” he said. “Even small changes can make a difference.”

Additionally, Ornish said, “What’s good for you is also good for the planet.”

In an editorial that accompanied the study, Ornish wrote that a plant-based diet could help cut annual health care costs from chronic diseases in the U.S., which exceed $1 trillion. Shrinking the livestock industry could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt the destruction of forests to create pastures, he wrote.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

NEW fears were raised over genetically modified food yesterday after researchers claimed regulators had missed an "unsuspected viral gene" in widely used crops.

A study published last month found that the commonest modification in GM crops includes a "significant fragment of a viral gene" known as Gene VI.

The study by European Food Standards Agency experts published in the journal GM Crops and Food said the gene “might result in unintended phenotypic changes" which means it could have unintended genetic or environmental consequences.
The report comes with ministers backing GM foods and claiming the technology is needed to feed the world's growing population.

Earlier this month Environment Secretary Owen Paterson said the Government should not be afraid of making the case to the public about the "potential benefits of GM beyond the food chain, for example, reducing the use of pesticides and inputs such as diesel".

But yesterday critics claimed the new discovery suggests that some GM crops could pose risks for consumers and the environment.

Dr Jonathan Latham of Independent Science News said: "This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers.

"This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene might not be safe for human consumption.

"It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance."

Gene VI is found in some of the most widely grown FGM crops including weedkiller-resistant soya beans and maize.

Two thirds of GM crops approved in the US contain the hitherto unidentified viral gene.

GM crops have been given commercially attractive properties - such as weedkiller or pest resistance - by having new genes inserted.

These genes are usually taken from species with which the crop could not breed naturally.

Last night Pete Riley of the GM Freeze pressure group said: “This discovery of this previously unidentified gene in GM crops raises serious concern about the safety of GM food and feed.

“The very existence of Gene VI has been missed for many years, so we don’t know what implications it might have.

"It is impossible to say if this has already resulted in harm to human or animal health, and since there is still no GM labelling in places like the US where GM is more common in the diet, no epidemiological studies can be carried out.

"Possible harmful effects of GM Organisms could easily be lost in the general morass of ailments which vets and medics have to deal with on a daily basis, especially if these were as result of low level exposure over several years, and the link to GM could take many years to establish that way.

“This is a clear warning the GM is not sufficiently understood to be considered safe.

But the biotech industry insists that its products have undergone rigorous checks - and have been eaten safely by million worldwide.

Dr Julian Little, chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, said: “The claims by Latham and Wilson were made in a blog posting, not a peer-reviewed publication. The original article by Podevin and du Jardin states that there are no elements present in the GM crops tested which are similar to known toxic and allergenic proteins.

“The GMO risk assessment carried out by EFSA is the central element of the strictest, science-based crop authorisation procedure in the world. This study is just a small part of what is a comprehensive and highly complex scrutiny process.
“Over the past 25 years, the European Commission has funded more than 130 research projects involving 500 independent research groups which have found no higher risks to the environment or food chain from GM crops than from conventional plants and organisms. "Furthermore, nearly three trillion meals containing GM ingredients have been eaten without a single substantiated case of ill-health. The combination of these two facts can give consumers a huge amount of confidence in the safety of GM crops.”

The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs said the viral gene in the research occurs naturally and will be present in non-GM food.

A spokesman said: “The world’s population is growing which means people will need more food and there will be a greater demand for water, energy and land.

“GM is one of the tools in the box that could help us tackle these challenges. But our top priority is safeguarding human health and the environment so any decisions on GM would have to be based on rigorous scientific evidence.”

The European Food Safety Authority has highlighted that the data published in the paper do not represent a new discovery of a viral gene and nor do they indicate safety concerns surrounding previously evaluated GM crops.

Just two days after it was reported that GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine has actually caused a whopping 800 cases of narcolepsy in children according to Reuters, a major publicity stunt for the efficacy of the flu shot as presented by CNN has crashed and burned. After receiving his very first flu shot live on air from vaccine advocate Dr. Oz in attempt to showcase the ‘safety and effectiveness of the shot’, Piers Morgan has now developed flu-like symptoms that even he and his guest have attributed to the reception of the shot.

In the January 23 interview with country music celebrity Dwight Yoakam, Piers and Dwight discuss the connection between the recent shot and his new sickness. In the interview, which can be seen below, Piers asks “…As you can tell, things are deteriorating. Is there any advice you can give me?”

Yoakam replies with a simple “Don’t ever take a flu shot again,” sparking further discussion surrounding the public injection that ultimately turned into a PR nightmare for Big Pharma. In a surprising reply, Piers says ““We’re both doing the math, so I mean, we both saw him put that thing in my arm and within 10 days I’m struck down.” It was Piers’ first flu shot in his life, according to his own testimony.

You can watch this segment below:

As pointed out by Adan Salazar, the sickness is also highly ironic as Piers actually questioned Dr. Oz about the so-called ‘myths’ surrounding the shot before it was administered. One such ‘myth’ was whether or not the shot could actually lead to the flu. In dialogue with Dr. Oz, Piers nervously asked:

“So the myth about these, and I’m told it’s a myth, is that you can actually get flu or flu-like symptoms simply by having the shot. Is that true?”

Dr. Oz, of course, regurgitated information provided by the CDC in stating that such an event is impossible due to the fact that the flu shot contains the dead flu virus. Dr. Oz also fails to mention that even the FDA’s own website admits that vaccines contain toxic additives like:

Antibiotics: Linked to the development of mental illness, obesity, and serious gut imbalance due to the depletion of beneficial bacteria in the gut, superbug-spawning antibiotics are used in vaccinations as an ‘additive’ as admitted by the FDA.

Formaldehyde: This of course is the known carcinogen used in the preservation of corpses by funeral homes and elsewhere. Even Cancer.gov admits that formaldehyde is a serious cancer-causing chemical, stating “Formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer…” So why is this cancer-causing substance being used an additive for vaccinations?

Aluminum: Popularly associated with Alzheimer’s disease and a bunch of other brain disorders, aluminum is used as a vaccine additive to ‘stimulate a response’ from the body.

Thimerosal: One of the most widely known additives, thimerosal is a mercury-containing substance that is unsafe at any dose. Your doctor is likely entirely misinformed on this additive, stating there is no mercury-containing thimerosal in a vaccine when even the FDA and CDC plainly state this. As stated by Dr. David Wallinga from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, mercury is ‘toxic in all its forms.”

Instead of giving Piers a vaccination full of these toxic additives, Dr. Oz could have simply recommended that Piers begin supplementing with high quality, inexpensive vitamin D3 — or simply take a walk around outside in a warmer climate. Even in considerably low doses, vitamin D3 has been found to flash the risk of flu development by nearly half – a much great success rate than the flu shot.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Thousands of people braved the cold and demonstrated in the streets of Berlin as politicians and policymakers met to discuss changes to global agricultural policies.

Under the slogan, “We are fed up,” the protesters called for an end to food scandals, genetic engineering and animal cruelty in industrial livestock farming.

“We are from the Friends of the Earth and we demonstrate for the peace of animals, small farmers, ecological farming, non-genetic produce animals and non-genetic food,” Viola Wagner said, as she marched and chanted.

Demonstrators marched through Berlin's shopping and government districts. (Karen Pauls/CBC)

“We got up at 4 o’clock to come six hours by bus. I’m here for my children and my grandchildren, to make sure they have a future and good food.”

More than 120 groups representing farmers, industry, and animal rights and environmental activists organized the demonstration. It was timed to coincide with International Green Week, the Agriculture Ministers' Summit and the Global Forum for Agriculture, which are all taking place in Berlin this week.

The event also comes as another scandal in Germany has shaken consumer confidence in the safety and quality of the country’s food. Animal feed fats contaminated with the carcinogenic compound dioxin has again been discovered in the food chain, causing some countries to block German pork and egg imports.

Organizers said 22,000 people came from all over Germany, although police estimated turnout closer to 15,000.

Following about 50 tractors, they marched from Berlin’s main train station, along one of the main shopping streets, through the government district, and ended with a rally in front of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s offices.

“The current dioxin scandal has suddenly highlighted the backlog of reforms in agricultural policy,” Hubert Weiger, chairman of BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany), said in a speech.

In her weekly video message on Saturday, Merkel said the government would tighten controls in the animal feed industry.

Meanwhile, some demonstrators also called for changes to Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is responsible for approximately 40 per cent of the total EU budget. Policymakers are currently deciding how to reform the CAP, which expires at the end of 2013.

“The politicians don’t respect enough the environmental issues,” said Moritz Steinbeck, of Young Friends of the Earth.

Demonstrators want changes to the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, which expires at the end of 2013. (Karen Pauls/CBC)
Factory farms disregard animal welfare, and the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides is harming the environment and threatening biodiversity, he said.

“We want to send a message to the German politicians, but also to the European Union because the CAP reform is now being discussed. I hope [they will listen] and I think they do because if you look at the anti-nuclear movement, it was quite powerful in Germany and had an effect on the politicians and the politics that were made.”

Across town, more than 80 agriculture ministers, representing 70 per cent of the world’s population, discussed new strategies for global food security.

The main issues included reduced resources, a growing population, and the problem of one billion undernourished people around the world, German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner said.

German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner says the world food supply is alarming, when considering population growth. (Karen Pauls/CBC)

“We try here at the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture — together with representatives from the political, economical realms as well as regular citizens, to find solutions on how to best deal with investments into agriculture and rural regions for better solutions on how to supply food to the world,” she said, adding CAP is not on the agenda.

“We will not be discussing European agriculture politics here.”

CAP is of interest to countries like Canada because, in the past, it has been an export subsidy for European agricultural products, providing direct payments to farmers based on how much land they had in production in a base year, said Harald von Witzke, a professor of agriculture economics and president of the Humboldt Forum for Food and Agriculture.

The original idea was to help farmers make up for the competitive disadvantage of having to meet stricter quality and environmental regulations than other countries, he said.

“Now the question is whether the level of these subsidies should be reduced because the CAP is the single most important budget item of European Union. And the second is whether it should be more equitable because now the West European member countries get higher payments than the East European member countries,” he said.

“But the most controversial is the so-called “Greening” – idling for environmental reasons of 7 per cent of the acreage, and this during a time of very high agricultural commodity prices. This will drive up prices even more.”

No one from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is attending the meeting, but the department is monitoring the CAP discussions, a spokesperson said in an email.

Over 140 nations have come together under a new treaty to curb deadly mercury pollution over serious risks to worldwide health, but meanwhile the FDA is still allowing the mass majority of US citizens to chomp down on mercury-containing processed foods. Specifically, mercury has actually been found in the highly popular genetically modified junk ingredient high-fructose corn syrup — an ingredient present in over 90% of processed foods.

I’ve been very vocal about this issue since it was originally reported by the Washington Times in 2009 despite little syndication by the mainstream media. The report could not mention brand names for legal reasons (although I wish they would), however it was found that half of all high-fructose corn syrup samples tested contained mercury. It was also found in about a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products in which high-fructose corn syrup is listed as one of the top two ingredients.

You can easily imagine that this includes major soda brands, candy manufacturers, and much more.

But what does the FDA say about this? Or how about the corporations responsible for churning out mercury-ridden products for children and pregnant women to consume? Well, after the report surfaced in 2009, action groups began calling on the FDA for action. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy was one such organization, with member and co-author of the two studies that identified mercury in HFCS stating on record in the report:

“Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply.”

Needless to say, the FDA did not warn the US public about the mercury content in these foods. Instead, it continues to protect billion dollar corporations who continue to literally poison the nation with foods that are unfit for consumption.

As reported with the original article surrounding the new treaty, mercury is a highly dangerous substance — especially for developing and unborn children. Brain development can be majorly impaired, and pregnant mothers consuming mercury can alter the very growth of their babies. As the article states:

“Mercury is a serious health threat, especially for unborn children, and exposure to it can not only have neurological effects but also an impact on the digestive and immune systems.”

Next time you go shopping, be sure to avoid any items containing high-fructose corn syrup and processed foods at large. I recommend always purchasing high quality organic foods to avoid not only high-fructose corn syrup, but a wide variety of toxic ingredients that come along with ‘traditional’ (pesticide-laced, GMO-containing junk) options. We simply cannot count on the FDA or any other ‘watchdog’ US government agency to warn consumers when it comes to what we are putting into our mouths.

It is beyond ironic and more geared towards disturbing that 140 nations have signed off on this treaty to curb mercury emissions when many US citizens (a first world nation) are actually putting it directly into their mouths.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Where do parents and teachers get the idea there's "something wrong" with their kid and only an expensive drug can fix it? From Pharma's seamless web of ads, subsidized doctors, journals, medical courses and conferences, paid "patient" groups, phony public services messages and reporters willing to serve as stenographers.

Free stenography for Pharma from sympathetic media includes articles like "One in 40 Infants Experience Baby Blues, Doctors Say," on ABC News and "Preschool Depression: The Importance of Early Detection of Depression in Young Children," on Science Daily.

For many, the face of the drugs-not-hugs message is Harold Koplewicz M.D. author of the pop best seller It's Nobody's Fault , and former head of NYU's prestigious Child Study Center. In a 1999 Salon article, Koplewicz reiterated his "no-fault" statement, assuring parents that psychiatric illness is not caused by bad parenting. "It is not that your mother got divorced, or that your father didn't wipe you the right way," he said. "It really is DNA roulette: You got blue eyes, blond hair, sometimes a musical ear, but sometimes you get the predisposition for depression."

Many regard the NYU Child Study Center which Koplewicz founded and led before leaving in 2009 to start his own facility, as helping to usher in the world of brave new pediatric medicine in which children, toddlers and infants, once expected to outgrow their problems, are now diagnosed with lifelong psychiatric problems. The Child Study Center is "a threat to the health and welfare of children," and its doctors are "hustlers working to increase their 'client' population and their commercial value to psychotropic drug manufacturers," charged Vera Sharav, president of the watchdog group, the Alliance for Human Research Protection.

A look at the Center's stated mission provides no reassurance. Its goal of "eliminating the stigma of being or having a child with a psychiatric disorder," and "influencing child-related public policy," sounds a lot like a Pharma sales plan. And its boast about having "a structure that allows recruitment of patients for research studies and then provides 'real-world' testing for successful controlled-environment findings," could send chills down the back of parents afraid their kids will be guinea pigs or money-making subjects.

In 2007, the fears of the Center's skeptics were confirmed when it launched an aggressive, scare tactic marketing campaign called Ransom Notes in 2007. "We have your son," said one ad, created with bits of disparate type like a ransom note from a kidnapper. "We will make sure he will no longer be able to care for himself or interact socially as long as he lives. This is only the beginning"Autism."

"We have your daughter. We are forcing her to throw up after every meal she eats. It's only going to get worse," said another ad signed "Bulimia."

"We are in possession of your son. We are making him squirm and fidget until he is a detriment to himself and those around him. Ignore this and your kid will pay," said another add from "ADHD." Other ransom ads came from "kidnappers" named Depression, Asperger's Syndrome and OCD.

Created pro bono by advertising giant BBDO, the ads were planned to run in New York magazine, Newsweek , Parents, Education Update . Mental Health News and other publications and on 11 billboards and 200 kiosks said the press release.

Immediate Outrage

The hostage campaign drew immediate public outrage and more than a dozen advocacy groups joined together in an online petition calling for an end to it. "This is a demonstration of the assaultive tactics used by psychiatry today--in particular, academic psychiatrists and university based medical centers that are under the influence of their pharmaceutical partners," Vera Sharav wrote in alerts to AHRP's mailing list. "If Dr. Koplewicz et al are not stopped, the campaign will be hitting the rest of the country," she warned, and informed readers that the campaign was formulated by BBDO, "a major direct to consumer prescription drug advertising firm," asking the New York State Attorney General's office to investigate.

Days after the backlash, the Center revoked the advertising campaign "after the effort drew a strongly negative reaction, " reported the New York Times. Koplewicz told the Times the decision was made by the Center with no pressure from New York University and they planned to introduce a new campaign in the next three months. However, he left the Child Study Center at NYU in 2009 to start his own facility, initially called the "Child Study Center Foundation," but changed to the "Child Mind Institute," in 2010.

Though Koplewicz' Child Mind Institute is supposedly a "non-profit," it is ensconced on Park Avenue in Manhattan and Koplewicz' hourly rate "can be as high as $1,000 (three to four times that of the average Manhattan therapist)," says the Times . In a chilling interview on Education Update Online about the Institute Koplewicz says the reason the facility works closely with schools "is simply that's where the kids are," drawing an analogy to Willy Sutton who said "the reason he robbed banks is that's where the money is."

Last month in the Wall Street Journal , Koplewicz wrote that "no studies have examined the effect of long-term use" of ADHD meds, but they "have been in use for 70 years, and there is no evidence that suggests any adverse effects." But there has been a large federal study of the long-term effects of the drugs and it shows they are "ineffective over longer periods," and "that long-term use of the drugs can stunt children's growth," reported the Washington Post. Oops.

Two features that characterize the pediatric medicine practiced by the pill enthusiasts are they term the "diseases" they identify under-treated and under-diagnosed and they urge early treatment when symptoms first appear. (Before the symptoms go away say cynics.)

Yet the very fact that such diseases are lifelong conditions is reason to wait to medicate kids say highly respected doctors. Nor can parents with medicated children know if their kids even needed the drugs since symptoms from the drugs are often called the "disease," says Peter Breggin, M.D. recent interview.

One thing doctors on both sides of the pediatric drug controversy agree on is the decision to put a child on drugs will likely sentence him or her to a lifetime of medications. What they disagree about is whether that is good or bad thing.

Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Prof Michael T. Osterholm PhD et al ... Background: No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza. – The Lancet

Dominant Social Theme: Vaccines are great. Use them for everything.

Free-Market Analysis: We missed this study in The Lancet when it came out more than a year ago but it is certainly worth commenting on.

Even the public summary itself is a damning indictment of the various flu vaccines currently being promoted by Big Pharma. The summary of this study states definitively that flu vaccine protection is "variable." Here's some more:

Methods: ... We searched Medline for randomised controlled trials assessing a relative reduction in influenza risk of all circulating influenza viruses during individual seasons after vaccination (efficacy) and observational studies meeting inclusion criteria (effectiveness). ... We estimated random-effects pooled efficacy for trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) when data were available for statistical analysis (eg, at least three studies that assessed comparable age groups).Findings: We screened 5707 articles and identified 31 eligible studies (17 randomised controlled trials and 14 observational studies). Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 59% [95% CI 51—67] in adults aged 18—65 years). No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 2—17 years or adults aged 65 years or older ...Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60—93).Interpretation: Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity.

What we have here is a study that found the vaccines in question were shown to have been "effective" as little as 59 percent of the time. Additionally, please note the following conclusion: "Interpretation: Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons."

There is something grievously dysfunctional about a medical environment based on chemical concoctions that generate numerous additional and injurious effects simply to claim ownership.

The Western medical model is incalculably flawed. Ancient civilizations and even recent tribal cultures doubtless had much of the same medical technology available today via drugs. The difference is that the actual plant-based remedies were applied rather than synthetic variants prepared for patent purposes.

The current medical paradigm is based almost entirely on torturous patent provisions that bear little relationship to the natural law to which – in a sensible world – they would correspond.

Like so many other dominant social themes of the elites, the safety and efficacy of vaccines is under scrutiny as never before. As they should be.

Here at The Daily Bell we've been covering the ineffectiveness (and even deadliness) of vaccines for at least three years and in other incarnations for a number of additional years. In that time, we've been gratified to see that reporting about this medical-induced plague has continually increased.

We believe that a tiny group of super elites runs much of Big Pharma and funds their ownership via central banking. This power elite wants global governance and public health is one tool at their disposal.

We are especially distrustful of vaccines because the paradigm is simply too good to be true. According to mainstream medicine there is ONE cure for most of humankind's ills and it just so happens to be a cure that can only be administered in massive quantities by government officials.

If you wanted to create a healthcare dominant social theme, the myth of vaccine-as-cure-all aligns perfectly with the elites' determination to raise up government solutions as absolutely necessary and effective.

One need only need take a critical look at the idea of "herd immunity" to understand the manipulations currently being practiced. So-called herd immunity provides public health workers with a rationale to insist that everyone be vaccinated. The idea is that if certain people are not vaccinated, the disease itself will never be "wiped out."

The trouble with this insistence is threefold. First, it is almost impossible to vaccinate everyone for a given disease and thus even diseases that are said to have vanished have a habit of coming back.

Second, what has become clear in the past ten years is that not everyone SHOULD be vaccinated. There are obviously people, children especially, who are sensitive to various vaccines and have horrible reactions to them. Thus, herd immunity becomes an impossibility anyway.

Third, it could well be that much of what has been attributed to vaccines is merely distorted reporting and that the subsiding of certain kinds of diseases may have as much to do with better hygiene and overall health as much (or more) than vaccine programs.

The efficacy of vaccines generally should be challenged and their impact on a minority should be aggressively investigated. Here at The Daily Bell, we will continue to agitate for such investigations and point out the difficulties of the current one-size-fits-all vaccine paradigm. For more articles on this issue simply search for "vaccine" and Daily Bell. Or "Wakefield" and "Daily Bell."

Conclusion: The Daily Bell's modest staff will receive no journalist awards for its journalistic efforts, nor will the many other alternative news efforts that have contributed to revealing the truth about the vaccine industry. No matter ... Our biggest and most treasured award is your patronage.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Chemotherapy can damage healthy cells? Say it isn't so? You don't need a degree to figure this one out. Poison kills indiscriminately-- always has and always will. While damaging healthy cells, chemotherapy also triggers them to secrete a protein that sustains tumour growth and resistance to further treatment. Researchers in the United States made the "completely unexpected" finding they claimed while seeking to explain why cancer cells are so resilient inside the human body when they are easy to kill in the lab.

Only through the forces that have carefully conspired to thwart meaningful advances in cancer research and treatment over the past century has chemotherapy succeeded. In what reality do we live in when cut, poison and burn are the only ways acceptable to treat cancer?

No chemotherapy drug has ever actually cured or resolve the underlying causes of cancer. Even what mainstream medicine consideres "successful" chemotherapy treatments are only managing symptoms, usually at the cost of interfering with other precious physiological functions in patients that will cause side effects down the road. There is no such thing as a drug without a side effect.

They tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found "evidence of DNA damage" in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.

Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumours.The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.

"The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected," study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.

The protein was taken up by tumour cells neighbouring the damaged cells.

"WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Nelson.

In cancer treatment, tumours often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.

Rates of tumour cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.

"Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells... may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics," wrote the team.

The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumours.
Patients with incurable cancers are promised much greater access to the latest drugs which could offer them extra months or years of life, however many doctors have been urged to be more cautious in offering cancer treatment to terminally-ill patients as chemotherapy can often do more harm than good, advice supported by Nelson's study.

The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) found that more than four in ten patients who received chemotherapy towards the end of life suffered potentially fatal effects from the drugs, and treatment was “inappropriate” in nearly a fifth of cases.

More than half of all cancer all patients suffer significant treatment-related toxicity. Treatment can also result in life-threatening infections or patients may simply die of their cancer.

When asked about how to improve a patient's response and outcome, Nelson replied ""alternatively, it may be possible to use smaller, less toxic doses of therapy."

The bottom line is that chemotherapy destroys virtually all cells and systems before getting to the actual cancer. This means your central nervous system, organ systems and your immune system (to name just a few) are all compromised even years after the treatment has subsided. Forget about cancer killing you because chemotherapy will do a much better job in the long term.

Chemotherapy causes healthy brain cells to die off long after treatment has ended and may be one of the underlying biological causes of the cognitive side effects -- or "chemo brain" -- that many cancer patients experience.

Conventional cancer treatment is a massive and expensive fraud--a non-treatment that sickens and kills more people than it ever "cures." It can never cure anything because it poisons the body which only causes more disease in the future.

The question of whether or not chemotherapy really extends life can probably no longer be answered. In clinical studies the manufacturers always compare their new drugs with older cellular poisons. There are no control groups that are given no treatment at all.

In order to be allowed onto the market, it suffices to achieve a "statistically significant" advantage in one small group of hand- picked test subjects vs. those treated with some already approved cellular poison.

As a mother of three young children, the debate centered around the nutritional value of cow’s milk has been at the forefront of my mind for quite some time. Conditioned by the well-known campaigns of milk marketers “Milk. It does a body good.” and “Got Milk?”, I’ve been led to believe that milk is needed – especially by young children – for good bone growth, brain development and, of course, to meet the body’s calcium needs.

If milk does a body so much good, why is US-produced milk banned in Europe? It turns out that in 1994, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). rBGH in milk is believed to increase the risk of cancer. In an attempt to protect its citizens from genetically-modified milk, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the U.N. Food Safety Agency representing 101 nations worldwide, has banned rBGH milk in the 101 nations that it represents. Canada is another country where rBGH milk is banned.

The European Commission organized independent research to review the effect of rBGH on public health. Here is what they found:“The public health committee confirmed earlier reports of excess levels of the naturally occurring Insulin-like-Growth Factor One (IGF-1), including its highly potent variants, in rBGH milk and concluded that these posed major risks of cancer, particularly of the breast and prostate, besides promoting the growth and invasiveness of cancer cells by inhibiting their programmed self-destruction (apoptosis).” Source: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

rBGH is another one of Monsanto’s genetically-engineered products that mimics the cow’s naturally-produced BGH hormone. American dairy farmers inject their cows with rBGH to increase how much milk each cow produced – usually by 20%. The use of rBGH results in cows also producing more IGF-1 hormone, to such excess that milk from rBGH-treated cows has up to 80% more IGF-1.

Researchers throughout the world argue that consumption of excess IGF-1 hormone, which is also found in humans, may result in a higher risk of breast, colon and prostate cancer. Yet, in the US, Monsanto and the milk industry do not clearly label which milk comes from rBGH-treated cows.

And the effect on humans is just one of the problems. The use of rBGH also has a serious effect on the animals. Here’s a short 3-minute video about Monsanto’s deception regarding rBGH.

If the idea of consuming hormone-filled, cancer-causing, Franken-milk doesn’t turn you off of cow’s milk, at least the non-organic non-labeled brands, then perhaps some of the following facts will give you more food for thought:

Milk is believed to deplete the body of natural calcium, which is used up in the process of digesting milk. It offers an inorganic calcium that cannot be easily digested and used by the human body. “Just like our bodies cannot use the iron in a magnet, they cannot use the calcium in milk.”

Milk is acidic, making it difficult for the body to digest. As a result, the pH of human intestines may become unbalanced, making them more susceptible to injury and disease.Cow’s milk contains at least 59 active hormones, allergens, fat, cholesterol, herbicides, pesticies, antibiotics, blood, pus, bacteria and viruses.“It’s not natural for humans to drink cow’s milk. Humans milk is for humans. Cow’s milk is for calves. You have no more need of cow’s milk than you do rats milk, horses milk or elephant’s milk. Cow’s milk is a high fat fluid exquisitely designed to turn a 65 lb baby calf into a 400 lb cow. That’s what cow’s milk is for!” – Dr Michael Klaper MD

Yes, our bodies need calcium. But perhaps milk is not the best source, as we’ve been led to believe. Try eating more lettuce, kale, broccoli, almonds, oranges, flax seed, sesame seeds, dill, thyme and other dried herbs. For cereal, try almond or hemp milk instead of cow’s milk. Calcium from plant sources is more easily digested by our bodies than calcium from cow’s milk, because plants have a high magnesium content, and magnesium aids in the assimilation of calcium by the body. Decreasing your intake of cow’s milk will do your body good!

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Are we all entitled to be happy? If you are not, is a pill the answer?

Social anxiety disorder, depression, bi-polar disorder. It seems that these diseases now plague the American populous. The statistics behind psychiatric diseases and use of psychotropic drugs are staggering. Adult use of antidepressants almost tripled in the US between the periods 1988-1994 and 1999-2000. Between the term of 1994 and 2010, there was a 4000% increase of the diagnosis of bi-polar disorder in children. By 2007, antidepressants had become the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. Psychiatric drugs fuel a $330-billion industry without a single cure.

Unlike diagnoses for medical conditions, psychiatrists do not have blood tests or any other biological tests to ascertain the presence or absence of a mental illness. Psychiatrists rarely conduct thorough physical examinations to rule out medical conditions. – The Citizens Commission on Human Rights

The question arises: how much of this rise in mental diseases is driven by psychiatry and pharmaceutical industries? How many diagnoses are just people experiencing normal human emotions – yes, negative or unpleasant emotions, but distinctly human nevertheless.

This is a fairly lengthy but thorough documentary about psychotropic drugs and the for-profit industry behind psychiatry. It describes the myth of the tag “chemical imbalance” used to diagnose psychiatric diseases without any physical tests. It examines the role that the FDA has taken in speeding up the drug approval process. The video also examines the big business of psychotropic drugs, reporting that top prescription drugs generate revenues between $7 to $11 million per day for each major drug. It reveals how pharmaceutical companies market the same exact drugs under different names, for different psychotropic and physical conditions.

Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging

Many of us have taken psychotropic drugs at one point or another, and if you have not, it is likely that you know of at least a couple of people that take psychotropics on a regular basis. Yet, there are other solutions, methods, approaches, that have been proven to help with mental ailments. Eating a healthy diet made up of raw and natural foods. Turning to ancient practices such as meditation or yoga. Individual or group counseling. Lifestyle changes. Acupuncture. The list goes on. Perhaps a pill is not necessarily the answer.

Other than a depressed immune system with a side serving of carcinogenic, immunotoxic, neurotoxic, and sterility agents, this year’s flu shot has nothing to offer you but the usual poisons based on previous formulations. Moreover, their effectiveness in preventing the flu is less than a placebo. Although the FDA gave a two year deadline to remove thimerosal from vaccines after they were banned in 1997, they continue to appear in vaccine formulations and ironically the FDA is now only supporting these drugs, not prohibiting them.

In 2009, eight out of ten H1N1 vaccines had thimerosal. For last year’s 2011/2012 flu vaccine season, three out of five FDA approved vaccines has thimerosal.

If you have any doubts on the neurotoxic potential of thimerosal, please review the following scientific publications which document the adverse effects of mercury, merthiolate and ethyl mercury.

This year, the 2012/2013 season offers three out of six flu vaccines which contain thimerosal and all are FDA approved of course.

Note that for every single vaccine, the carcinogenic or mutagenic potential has not been evaluated, or for impairment of fertility. This means that none of the carcinogenic excipients (inside every vaccine) are ever studied and their effects on the human body are unknown. This declaration also indicates that there is no responsible authority that can state to a parent, that their son or daughter will not become infertile as a consequence of receiving the influenza vaccine.

Another remarkable fact is that although all pregnant women are encouraged to receive the flu vaccine by health and medical authorities, the safety and effectiveness for pregnant women or nursing mothers has also not been established. Perhaps this is why studies show many spontaneous abortions and stillbirths after pregnant women are vaccinated.

Safety and effectiveness of AFLURIA have not been established in
pregnant women or nursing mothers.
AFLURIA is not approved for use in children less than 5 years of age.
AFLURIA has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential.

Safety and effectiveness of Fluzone has not been established in pregnant women.

Fluzone has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.

***************************************************

I recently wrote on how every single vaccine is now being exposed for the lack of demonstrated evidence to actually prevent a single case of disease over a placebo.

Flu vaccines are never tested in humans before they are produced to scale. It doesn’t matter what type of flu vaccine it is…it is categorically impossible to test a flu vaccine before it is mass produced on the scale that flu vaccines are manufactured today. It takes several years for most vaccines to move from preclinical development to the marketplace.

Before a vaccine enters human testing, the developer conducts laboratory (in vitro) and laboratory animal (in vivo) testing to determine whether the product will be safe enough for researchers to proceed to clinical trials. If a flu vaccine were to follow the standard development procedures, by the time it would actually enter the marketplace it would be useless, since the strain it was testing against during clinical development has now changed. This is the nature of vaccine development versus flu viruses and something the vaccine industrial complex will never admit to.

A recent report which is again being highlighted by the alternative media is a remarkable study published in the Cochrane Library which found no evidence of benefit for influenza vaccinations and also noted that the vast majority of trials were inadequate.

The authors found that vaccines administered parenterally, that is, outside the digestive tract, usually meaning by injection, reduced influenza-like symptoms by 4%. They found no evidence that vaccination prevents viral transmission putting the whole herd immunity myth once again into question.

The maximum success rate of the flu vaccine is 6.25% which is a pretty big under-achievement, considering that the average reaction to placebo injections of distilled water is 30%.

The Cochrane Collaboration, an international not-for-profit organization providing up-to-date information about the effects of health care, has compiled data from 40 flu seasons worldwide.

The institute has concluded from the studies that there is no clear evidence to suggest that the flu jab offers any more protection than cheaper, hygiene-based methods such as hand-washing.

“Our analysis is compiled using millions of data from 40 seasons worldwide. What we have seen is that the influenza vaccine can at best have a very small effect,” said Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the report, to the newspaper.

More independent scientific studies are also coming forth showing evidence of massive fetal toxicity associated with flu vaccines. Recent research I reported on is now published in the journal Human & Experimental Toxicology showing a 4,250% increase in fetal deaths according to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data when comparing three consecutive influenza seasons.

CHICAGO (AP) - A thorny question is emerging in the health care world as hospitals increasingly crack down on employees who won't get flu shots.

Patients can refuse, so why not doctors and nurses?

Affected workers, hospital authorities and published reports say that in the past two months, at least 15 nurses and other hospital staffers in four states have been fired for refusing, and several have resigned.

In Rhode Island, one of three states with tough penalties behind a mandatory vaccine policy for health care workers, a labor union is suing over it.

Hospitals' get-tougher measures coincide with an earlier-than-usual flu season which has become widespread in most states. At least 20 children have died.

Most doctors and nurses do get flu shots.

Dr. Carolyn Bridges of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there's a need for stronger data on whether it helps.

The U.S. may be one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but it certainly isn't the healthiest, according to a new report from the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine.

The report, released on 9 jan, compared the U.S. with 16 other high-income democracies, including
Australia, Canada, Japan, and many western European countries. It found, on average, that Americans die sooner and experience higher rates of disease and injury than people in other countries. The report is the first look at multiple diseases, injuries and behaviors across the entire human life span.

"Americans are dying and suffering at rates that we know are unnecessary because people in other high-income countries are living longer lives and enjoying better health," said Steven H. Woolf, professor of family medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond and chair of the panel that wrote the report. "What concerns our panel is why, for decades, we have been slipping behind."

The panel also found that health problems exist among Americans regardless of age and that even Americans with certain advantages, such as higher incomes, a college education and health insurance, are sicker than people in other rich nations.

Some of the key areas of health in which the U.S. fared poorly included infant mortality and low birth weight, injuries and homicides, teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases,obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

Many of these health conditions disproportionately affect children and adolescents, the report found. For decades, the U.S. has had the highest infant mortality rate of any high-income country, and it also ranks poorly in measures of premature birth rates and the proportion of children who live until age 5.

According to the report, American teens have higher rates of death from car accidents and homicide and the highest rates of teen pregnancy. What's more, they are more likely to acquire sexually transmitted infections than their counterparts in other high-income countries.

The findings build on a 2011 National Research Council report that showed a growing mortality gap among Americans over age 50.

"It's a tragedy," Woolf said. "Our report found that an equally large, if not larger, disadvantage exists among younger Americans. I don't think most parents know that, on average, infants, children, and adolescents in the U.S. die younger and have greater rates of illness and injury than youth in other countries."

But some experts, including Dr. Marc Roberts, who specializes in political economy and global health at Harvard University School of Public Health, said the report's findings were "old news."

"Everyone who studies variations in national health systems has known this for decades," he said.

He also said the report's findings were superficial. "The report doesn't dig deeper into why many of these countries do better than the U.S.," he said. "Some of these countries have equal health care access while the U.S. doesn't. Limited access to health care is a major problem."

Reasons for America's low health outcomes include higher levels of poverty and income inequality, poor eating habits, higher rates of drug abuse, more car accidents that involve alcohol and easy access to firearms.

The panel did find that the U.S. outperforms other countries in some areas of health and health-related behavior. For example, Americans over age 75 live longer than their peers in other high-income countries. Americans also have lower death rates from stroke and cancer, better control of blood pressure and cholesterol levels, and lower rates of smoking.

Although the panel acknowledged that strategies are already in place to address low-performing health measures, they recommend that health officials inform the American public about the country's health disadvantages and be proactive.

"Research is important, but we should not wait for more data before taking action, because we already know what to do," Woolf said. "If we fail to act, the disadvantage will continue to worsen and our children will face shorter lives and greater rates of illness than their peers in other rich nations."

Pass It On: Americans are in worse health than people in other high-income nations.

A diet of fast food and takeaways may be behind the steady surge in children's asthma and allergies affecting the UK and other developed countries, according to a study.

An international collaboration of scientists has found that young teenagers in particular are nearly 40% more likely to have severe asthma if they eat burgers and other types of fast food more than three times a week. Children aged six to seven had an increased risk of 27%. Children eating fast food were also more likely to get severe eczema and rhinitis – a condition where the nose blocks or runs and the eyes are itchy and water.

The scientists, from New Zealand, Spain, Australia and Germany as well as Nottingham in the UK, say their study could have "major public health significance owing to the rising consumption of fast foods globally" if the link they have found turns out not to be coincidence but causal.

The good news was that eating fruit appeared to protect young people from asthma and allergies. Eating three or more portions a week reduced the severity of the symptoms by 11% among teenagers and 14% among younger children.

The research, published in the journal Thorax, part of the BMJ group, came out of a large collaborative project called the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC), which involves nearly 2 million children in more than 100 countries, making it the biggest of its kind.

The fast food study involved a relatively small proportion of the children taking part in ISAAC, from two age groups: 319,000 13- to 14-year-olds from 51 countries and 181,000 six- to seven-year-olds from 31 countries.

The children and their parents were sent questionnaires about their eating habits over the previous 12 months. They were asked how often they had eaten specific foods, including meat, fish, fruit and vegetables, pulses, cereals, bread and pasta, rice, butter, margarine, nuts, potatoes, milk, eggs, and fast food/burgers. They were also asked whether and how often they suffered from specific asthma and allergy symptoms – and if so, how severe they were and whether they stopped them sleeping or interfered with daily life.

Fast food – the authors specifically mentioned burgers only because it was the reference to fast food that most people would understand – was the only food type associated with asthma and allergies across all age ranges and countries. The authors said that "such consistency adds some weight to the possible causality of the relationship". But they said more research would be needed to discover whether fast food is definitely a problem.

The fast food link was stronger among teenagers than among the young children, which the authors suggest may be because adolescents have more independence, money and control over what they eat.

The paper says a link between fast food and asthma and allergies is biologically plausible. It could be "related to higher saturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids, sodium, carbohydrates and sugar levels of fast food and possibly preservatives". Fast foods have high levels of industrially hydrogenated vegetable fats such as margarine, which can be a source of trans fatty acids – "and there is some evidence that dietary intake of trans fatty acids is associated with asthma and allergy", say the authors. In the teenagers, eating butter, margarine and pasta was also associated with asthma symptoms.

Studies which involve asking people about their diet can be problematic, because people either forget or tailor the truth. Professor Hywel Williams, from the centre of evidence-based dermatology at Nottingham University, said recall over the 12 months of the study was more likely to be inaccurate than biased and this would tend to dilute any association between fast food and asthma, rather than the reverse.

"Now if there was a widespread belief already out there that fast foods are 'bad' for allergies, then you could say the data was simply reflecting such prior prejudices/beliefs. But we are not aware of any such widespread prior belief. People often believe fast foods are associated with things like acne, obesity and hyperactivity, but not allergies, and severe allergies at that. And even if one country had such a belief, how could you explain such consistency across so many countries and cultures and socio-economic groups?"

The study did not differentiate between types of fast food. "Our question simply asked, 'In the past 12 months, how often, on average, did you (did your child) eat or drink the following: meat; seafood; fruit; vegetables (green and root); pulses (peas, beans, lentils); cereal; pasta (including bread); rice; butter; margarine; nuts; potatoes; milk; eggs and fast food/burgers?'," he said. "So we could analyse each of these categories, but not split them down any further.

"And before we put the boot into burgers specifically, it does not mean they are always "fast" as some of us (including me) make very nutritious "slow" burgers at home – but it seemed like a well understood anchor for fast foods since burgers are one of the commonest types of fast food sold around the world."

Malayka Rahman, from Asthma UK, said: "This research adds to previous studies that suggest a person's diet can contribute to their risk of developing asthma, and indicates the benefit of further research to determine the effects that particular food groups can have on the chances of developing asthma or the impact it may have on severity. Evidence suggests that the vitamins and antioxidants found in fresh fruit and vegetables have a beneficial effect on asthma, therefore Asthma UK advises people with asthma to eat a healthy, balanced diet including five portions of fruit or vegetables every day, fish more than twice a week, and pulses more than once a week."

Many parents of children with asthma and allergies will already be watching carefully their child's diet since certain foods – notoriously nuts – are known to trigger allergic reactions.

With news that studies show apparently bland burgers, nuggets, pasties and similar fast foods could contribute to the risk, they will be keen to know what research suggests are the safer options for family dinners.

One better bet appears to be a Mediterranean diet. Asthma UK cites research into diet and asthma arried out in Athens in 2011 by Grigoropoulou and colleagues, which compared school children in the city with those in a rural part of Greece. They found that the urban children were more likely to get asthma, but eating a Mediterranean diet, rich in vegetables, fish and oils, appeared to protect them.

Fish oils on their own, however, did not do so well in a study from Edinburgh University published in 2009. This was a review of a number of studies where children had been given omega 3 and omega 6 supplements in the hope of preventing allergies, while other comparable children had been given placebos – dummy pills. The researchers found no clear evidence that the supplements had any protective effect.

"Contrary to the evidence from basic science and epidemiological studies, our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that supplementation with omega 3 and omega 6 oils is probably unlikely to play an important role as a strategy for the primary prevention of sensitization or allergic disease," they concluded.

Trans fatty acids have been linked to asthma and allergies before, in addition to raising cholesterol levels and the NHS advises people to reduce their intake. The fast food study suggests that the best advice for parents wanting to protect their children from asthma and allergies is to try to ensure they have a generally healthy diet, with plenty of fruit and hopefully some vegetables, and to steer clear of fast food restaurants.

• This article was amended on 15 January 2013 to clarify that the study found that children aged six to seven had an increased risk of 27% of having severe asthma, if they eat burgers and other types of fast food more than three times a week.

Monday, January 14, 2013

The statistics on Alzheimer’s disease are overwhelming. More than 5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s disease. One in eight older Americans has the condition, and Alzheimer’s is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States.

But there is another little-known stat that is equally, if not more, startling. Among cognitively normal people over the age of 75, about one-third has sufficient amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles to meet the criteria for Alzheimer’s disease.

These plaques and tangles are especially prominent in those who have Alzheimer’s and contribute to the degradation of neurons in the brain. But they also develop in many elderly people, even those who do not have Alzheimer’s.

It’s these cases — referred to as asymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (ASYMAD) — that researchers find particularly fascinating. People with ASYMAD have all the physical characteristics that could lead to the progression of Alzheimer’s disease, but have managed to avoid it. If researchers figure out how, then that could lead the way to better, more effective prevention and treatment measures for Alzheimer’s, which are both sorely lacking right now.

Negativity Hurts the Brain

A team of researchers recently hypothesized that certain personality traits contribute to the cognitive resilience of ASYMAD. They compared the personality traits of those who subsequently developed clinical dementia with those who subsequently died cognitively normal, but with plaques and tangles indicative of Alzheimer’s discovered at autopsy.

And the results of this study may just want to make you turn that frown upside down, especially if you want to protect your brain.

The subjects in this study were also participants in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, a study of physical and psychological aging. All agreed to have an autopsy of the brain following their death.

Researchers analyzed data obtained from 111 of the participants who completed personality tests at least once before the onset of cognitive decline, and who underwent autopsies after death.

Personality traits were measured using a 240-item questionnaire that looked at 30 facets of personality, six for each of the five major dimensions of personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness.

As for neuropathology, participants were divided into three groups based on their cognitive health in their last year of life and their autopsy results:

1. Normal: Patients had no history of cognitive decline and autopsies showed no amyloid beta plaques or other signs of Alzheimer’s.

2. ASYMAD: Patients had no history of cognitive decline, but the autopsies showed amyloid beta plaques in the brain.

Looking at the results of the autopsies and the personality questionnaires, researchers discovered that those who had greater emotional resilience and conscientiousness had lower risk of developing dementia, even if their autopsies revealed plaques or other signs of Alzheimer’s.

More specifically, ASYMAD patients scored lower on their personality questionnaires on negative traits like neuroticism, vulnerability to stress, anxiety and depression, compared with controls and to those who actually developed Alzheimer’s disease.

In addition, low scores on conscientiousness were strongly associated with the development of clinical dementia.

Researchers believe those who are more emotionally stable and conscientious may have greater resilience because they are generally healthier and engage in behaviors that reduce the risk of dementia — like exercising and abstaining from tobacco use. In addition, emotionally stable people tend to have better metabolic and inflammatory risk profiles and are less likely to have depression — all of which have been linked to dementia.

Also, they found that personality might be related to the severity of disease. Specifically, high neuroticism and low agreeableness were linked to more advanced spread of tangles. And skepticism, cynicism and being manipulative/deceptive were the characteristics associated with the most severe amyloid plaques and tangles.

This new knowledge of how personality traits affect the development of dementia allows us to see just how much of a role attitude plays in our overall health.

The more negative your overall demeanor, the more it will affect your health, possibly leading to cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. Conversely, even if you are at physically high risk of Alzheimer’s, having a positive attitude toward life could delay or stop the progression of the disease. All the more reason to spend as much time as you can smiling, laughing and appreciating all the little things in your life.

When viewing this - and it is subtitled so you have to read it - a couple of things to remember.

Six minutes for a very stark message about what "free market" means - truly means.

First
I have no idea if the subtitles are correct - I can only assume that

Second
Nestle was at one point a financial supporter and participant of ALEC - we can not confirm present day - because ALEC keeps their member list secret.

ALEC believes and preaches a free market philosophy - which includes the privatization of everything - everything, do not kid yourself folks.

This video is an example (if the close captioning is correct) of the extremist views held by corporations who hold a free market philosophy.

Access to water is not your rightbelieving you have a right to water - is an extreme beliefWater is a raw material and a "foodstuff" that should be privatized and commercialized.

This video is an example of the extremist free market philosophy probably held by many of the corporations that belong to the American Legislative Exchange Council - your death means nothing compared to corporate profits. If this guy believes it - other corporations believe this for their raw materials also.

This is the first time I really truly understand what free market means to these people.

Free market means - it is okay for people to DIE as long as corporations can maintain high levels of revenues.

More importantly, we need to make a point of boycotting Nestle's water products post haste.
Nestle's Water division is enormous.

Maybe if they didn’t make money on water – they would not view water as such a commodity.

Financial inequities are inherent to any market system. Due to disparities in wealth or access, some individuals are placed in more fortunate positions. Over time, instead of countering these disparities, the market nurtures them. Unlike other commodities, like wheat or oil, water is essential for survival, and it does not have any substitutes. Limited or nonexistent access to grain or oil, while potentially devastating, is not life threatening. The traditional economic principles applied to other commodities are not applicable to water. Those unable to afford the market’s price for water would be left to die.

Saying no to vaccines in the face of the gale wind of propaganda and governmentally supported vaccine campaigns is high treason punishable to the point of having your kids taken away if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
True medicine cries out against vaccines and all the harm they are doing to children and people around the globe, but we have medical authorities claiming them to offer deliverance when in reality they offer little of anything but further toxic attacks on the body and immune system.

Medical truth is obviously against deliberately poisoning people, but don’t tell that to anyone at the FDA whose staff falls all over itself to promote the most dangerous drugs ever known to mankind.

Vaccines are loaded with crude materials that will never make anyone well. Poisons usually have the habit of poisoning people and the amount of mercury in the influenza vaccine is dangerous no matter what these un-trustable medical officials say.

Mercury is much more toxic than lead but there is not a doctor in the world stupid or crazy enough to inject lead into children’s veins, yet there are plenty who will gladly with a smile inject mercury.

In this crazy world of ours, medicine has turned against the people’s wellbeing, meaning they have committed high treason against the sacred medical oath to do no harm to their patients.

A flu vaccine with mercury-based thimerosal used as a preservative is an insult to the public’s intelligence but unfortunately that intelligence has been buried under a thick wall of medical lies and propaganda meant to sell vaccines.

“Chronic mercury exposure is also a threat to our health and makes us especially vulnerable to flu infections.

It has been shown that “prolonged exposure of mammals (white mice) to low mercury concentrations (0.008-0.02mg/m3) leads to a significant increase in the susceptibility of mice to pathological influenza virus strains.

This is shown by a more severe course of infection. In the experimental group more mice died (86-90.3%) than in the unexposed animals (60.2-68%), additionally the experimental group died more quickly.

The significant difference was in the appearance and degree of pneumonia in the effected animals,” wrote Dr. I. M. Trakhtenberg in “Chronic Effects of Mercury on Organisms.”

The CDC recommends that everyone over six months of age get a flu shot, especially people in high-risk groups, such as those under five or over 65 and people with chronic medical conditions, such as asthma or heart disease.

Any competent biochemist would look at the structure of thimerosal and identify it as a potent enzyme inhibitor.
What is surprising is that the appropriate animal and laboratory testing was not done on the vaccines containing thimerosal (and aluminum) before the government embarked on a mandated vaccine program that exposed infants to the levels of thimerosal that occurred. - Dr. Boyd E. Haley

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. published in the Huffington Post a few years ago devastating evidence that implicated the CDC in a terrible scandal in regards to the unnecessary injection of millions of children with thimerosal a few years back, and this is important because again the CDC is going to allow mercury-containing thimerosal to be used in the swine flu shots as well as the regular flu shots in the fall of 2009.

Doctors like to educate parents about what influenza is and to emphasize that influenza is different from having a cold.
They think that it is really important for parents to understand when we are in flu season that, if their child is exhibiting signs of an influenza-like illness, they need to seek care from their pediatric provider and begin antiviral drug treatment if indicated.
There are many ways to approach and treat the complications of influenza in Natural Allopathic Medicine, whose basic protocol is made from rock-solid emergency room medicinals of non-pharmaceutical origin.

With the government moving to ban incandescent light bulbsin favor energy-saving compact fluorescent lights, or CFLs, it’s important to remember what this means for your health.

A German Study that found that compact fluorescent lights emit cancer-causing chemicals such as phenol, naphthalene, and styrene when switched on. Inspired by these findings, researchers at Stony Brook University in New York have released a study on the effects that UV radiation from CFL bulbs can have on human skin cells.

Researchers summarized their findings, “… [we] measured the amount of UV emissions and the integrity of each bulb’s phosphor coatings. Results revealed significant levels of UVC and UVA, which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all CFL bulbs studied”

Abundant research has shown that UVA radiation can penetrate to the deepest levels of skin tissue. It is known to contribute greatly to skin wrinkling, and according to a US-Australian study, UVA radiation causes the greatest amount of damage to skin cells where most skin cancers start. These cells are called keratinocytes, and they are the same cells the researchers at Stony Brook exposed to radiation from CFL bulbs.

So who is responsible for the radiation given off by these energy efficient bulbs? Well, in 2006 and 2007 the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) measured base levels of radiation given off by CFLs. ACGIH is a completely NON-governmental member-based organization that is comprised of leading “occupational hygiene professionals.”

These levels were then reviewed by the IESNA, another member based organization comprised of lighting industry manufacturers and employers. Their president Chip Israel is the owner of Lighting Design Alliance, one of the worlds leading lighting design firms with offices in Chicago, Los Angeles, Fort Collins, and Dubai.

The IESNA then created the currently used RP 27, which sets the standards for acceptable levels of radiation emissions from all light sources. If a CFL bulb is found to exceed these levels, the maker of the bulb is required to place a warning on the package. There is no accountability however, as manufacturers are expected to self-police.

This is particularly troubling in light of new laws emerging all over the planet phasing out traditional and even halogen incandescent bulbs in favor of CFLs. The most noteworthy being a ban adopted by the European Union around September of 2012.

Some states are adopting these same types of regulation, albeit more slowly. For example, California no longer allows residents to purchase traditional incandescent bulbs – opting instead for halogen incandescent bulbs that use about 25% less energy – but encourages people to use CFLs instead regardless.

To protect your skin from being harmed by these bulbs, researchers recommend that you stay at least two feet away from them at all times, as radiation levels drop with distance. Additionally, the more filters between a person and the bulb – such as a glass cover or shade – the less radiation will reach your skin.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Fallout from the Obama Administration's aggressive federal enforcement in medical marijuana states has reached a fever pitch this month with three people being sentenced, two others due to surrender to federal authorities to serve out sentences of up to five years in prison, and one federal trial in Montana currently scheduled for January 14th. Two of the three people being sentenced in the coming month -- Montana cultivator Chris Williams and Los Angeles-area dispensary operator Aaron Sandusky -- face five and ten years to life, respectively.

"The number of sick patients being locked up by the Obama Administration is unprecedented and deplorable," said Kris Hermes, spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy organization. "Aggressive enforcement is an unacceptable means of addressing medical marijuana as a public health issue," continued Hermes. "The Obama Administration is lying to the American people when it says it's not targeting individual patients and these cases are clear evidence of that." Montana patient cultivator Richard Flor died in August while serving out a 5-year prison sentence.

Five cultivators claiming to be in compliance with Michigan's medical marijuana law were sentenced in October. Two of the cultivators -- Jaycob Montague and Jeremy Duval -- are already serving their prison terms of 18 months and 5 years, respectively, and two others -- John Marcinkewciz and Shelley Waldron -- are scheduled to surrender to federal authorities on January 8th and 10th, respectively. Waldron will be imprisoned for 18 months and Marcinkewciz for 5 years. The fifth cultivator, Jerry Duval (Jeremy's father), was sentenced to 10 years, but has not yet been given a surrender date.

More than a dozen people were indicted after federal agents conducted raids on state compliant medical marijuana businesses throughout Montana in March 2011. Only one, Chris Williams, went to trial and, like all other medical marijuana defendants who are tried in federal court, was denied a defense and swiftly convicted. While facing more than 80 years of mandatory minimum sentencing, Williams accepted a rare post-conviction plea deal that reduced his charges and possible sentence to 5 years to life in exchange for his promise not to appeal his conviction.

Williams, who is scheduled to be sentenced on February 1st, worked at Montana Cannabis with Chris Lindsey, another indicted cultivator. Lindsey, who testified against Williams at his trial, is expected to be sentenced today. Medical marijuana cultivator Jason Washington has one of the last unresolved federal cases in Montana. Washington is currently scheduled to go to trial on January 14th.

Aaron Sandusky operated G3 Holistic in Upland, California when he was federally indicted in June. Though Sandusky was arrested with several others, he was the only one who took his case to trial. In October, Sandusky was denied a defense in federal court and convicted at trial. He is scheduled to be sentenced on January 7th to a minimum of 10 years to life.

Far surpassing his predecessor George W. Bush, President Obama has conducted more than 200 SWAT-style raids on state-compliant medical marijuana businesses and has indicted more than 80 people since he took office.

"How many medical marijuana patients is President Obama going to imprison before he considers other, more humane options?" asked Hermes. "The president must answer for why he's going against his earlier pledges by spending Justice Department funds in this way, especially at a time of fiscal crisis."